To answer your first question. I dont know exactly what we should do. I do not have all the answers nor do you. But this reminds me of a quote from Admiral Yamamoto after attacking Pearl Harbor. He said attacking Pearl Harbor will "wake a sleeping giant". I am no historian but it appears to me we are waking a sleeping giant ourselves. More and more civilians and us, Iraqi and coalitions forces are being killed every day. It is getting worse and we are losing support globaly. And some point we are going to have to return home and defend our borders here at home. Let them fight it out. We had our own civil war and it is part of what made our country today.

Second question. I consider winning a terror free environment. This will never happen. If you disagree with me on this one then find another planet to live on.

I am not sure what you are asking on your last question but I assume it is why do terrorists dislike us so much and leave other countries alone?
Well it would take to long to explain. I dont believe anyone can get it 100% But I stold this from another site. Hope you have time to read it. I agree with everything but the last paragraph.
Why do terrorists hate America enough to give up their lives in order to deal the country such mortal blows? Of course it,s not America the terrorists hate; it,s American foreign policy. It,s what the United States has done to the world in the past half century -- all the violence, the bombings, the depleted uranium, the cluster bombs, the assassinations, the promotion of torture, the overthrow of governments, and more. The terrorists -- whatever else they might be -- are also rational human beings; which is to say that in their own minds they have a rational justification for their actions. Most terrorists are people deeply concerned by what they see as social, political or religious injustice and hypocrisy, and the immediate grounds for their terrorism is often retaliation for an action of the United States.
Most Americans find it difficult in the extreme to accept the proposition that terrorist acts against the United States can be viewed as revenge for Washington,s policies abroad. They believe that the US is targeted because of its freedom, its democracy, its modernity, its wealth, or just being part of the West.
But government officials know better. A Department of Defense study in 1997 concluded that: "Historical data show a strong correlation between US involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States." Former president Jimmy Carter, some years after he left the White House, was unambiguous in his concordance with such a sentiment: "We sent Marines into Lebanon and you only have to go to Lebanon, to Syria or to Jordan to witness first-hand the intense hatred among many people for the United States because we bombed and shelled and unmercifully killed totally innocent villagers -- women and children and farmers and housewives -- in those villages around Beirut. ... As a result of that ... we became kind of a Satan in the minds of those who are deeply resentful."
The terrorists responsible for the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 sent a letter to the New York Times which stated, in part: "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."
For more than four months the most powerful nation in history rained down a daily storm of missiles upon one of the poorest and most backward people in the world. Eventually, this question pressed itself onto the world,s stage: Who killed more innocent, defenseless people? The terrorists in the United States on September 11 with their flying bombs? Or the Americans in Afghanistan with their AGM-86D cruise missiles, their AGM-130 missiles, their 15,000 pound "daisy cutter" bombs, their depleted uranium, and their cluster bombs? By year's end, the count of the terrorists, victims in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania stood at about 3,000. The total count of civilian dead in Afghanistan was essentially ignored by American officials and just about everyone else, but a painstaking compilation of numerous individual reports from the domestic and international media, aid agencies, and the United Nations, by an American professor -- hunting down the many separate incidents of 100-plus counts of the dead, the scores of dead, the dozens, and the smaller numbers -- arrived at considerably more than 3,500 through early December, and still counting.
The American scorched-earth bombing of Afghanistan may well turn out to be a political train wreck. Can it be doubted that thousands throughout the Muslim world were emotionally and spiritually recruited to the cause of the next Osama bin Laden by the awful ruination and perceived injustice? That is to say, the next generation of terrorists. Indeed, in December, while the American bombs were still falling on Afghanistan, a man -- British citizen Richard Reid, who was a convert to Islam -- tried to blow up an American Airlines plane en route to the United States with explosives hidden in his shoes. At the London mosque that Reid had attended, the cleric in charge warned that extremists were enlisting other young men like Reid and that agents aligned with radical Muslim figures had stepped up recruiting efforts since September 11. The cleric said that he knew of "hundreds of Richard Reids" recruited in Britain. Reid, described in the press as a "drifter," reportedly traveled to Israel, Egypt, the Netherlands, and Belgium before arriving in Paris and boarding the American Airlines plane. This raises the question of who was financing him. The freezing of numerous bank accounts of alleged terrorist groups throughout the world by the United States may have rather limited effect.
Americans do not feel any more secure in their places of work, in their places of leisure, or in their travels than they did a day before their government's bombings began.
Has the power elite learned anything? Here's James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA, speaking in December in Washington, advocating an invasion of Iraq and unconcerned about the response of the Arab world: The silence of the Arab public in the wake of America's victories in Afghanistan, he said, proves that "only fear will re-establish respect for the U.S." What, then, can the United States do to end terrorism directed against it? The answer lies in removing the anti-American motivations of the terrorists. To achieve this, American foreign policy will have to undergo a metamorphosis.

If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce, in all sincerity, to every corner of the world, that America's global interventions have come to an end, and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the USA but now -- oddly enough -- a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. There would be more than enough money. One year's military budget of 330 billion dollars is equal to more than $18,000 an hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated.

Again these are not my exact words but in all fairness I think it is pretty accurate and I think the last paragraph is rediculous. But I left the entire article in anyway.

- think the west is involved cause they/we have money. Poor countried like uganda, nepal, bolivia, haiti, new zeland arent avoiding hot spots cause they are morally superior, they are just broke as a joke. They dont even have decent roads, schools, hospitals, sanitation systems .... really basic stuff. A military with something as powerful as a nuclear sub or aircraft carrier is a dream to them. Good example is North Korea. North Korea CANT afford a nuclear program. The country is in ruins and everyone is starving in order to fullfill Kim jong Ills military aspirations. NO AMERICAN IS STARVING CAUSE OF OUR MILITARY SPENDING. NOT ONE !!!!

Every country in the world has spies. Many not very good or very trained and just report on simple miliatry transport stuff, and are nothing more than dirt farmers and goat herders with a side job as a military agent. But we aren some morally bankrupt cesspool. Also its a RELIGIOUS jihad, not political. Why was saudia arabia struck by the terrorists despite being the holy land and its many princes funding al qaeda and supporting the ideals of al qaeda ?
CAUSE ITS RELGIOUS, anyone who is not extreme enough is a target.

I brought up those other countired cause they are not easy to start an uprising in. Go try to start an uprising or have a different political opinion in any number of countires and you will be black listed, beaten, put in concentration camps, sometimes your whole village will suffer. NOT CAUSE THEY ARE so morally superior to USA they have escaped terrorism. They have escaped terrorism from the muslims cause well south america and central america is virtually all catholic. Even the communist states like venezula. Still very hard core catholic. NO MUSLIM hard core sillyness would ever be tolerated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike L

I answered all your questions so now you can answer this question for me.
Wheter you agree or disagree with the current administrations actions and policies, do you think we should remain in Iraq with the current conditions and allow more of our sons and daughters be killed? If so would you stay the course or would you change the way things are being handled currently?

Yes the war isnt going great. I dont have a great realistic answer to the problem besides exterminating all the radical muslims.

You forgot to add to your "if you were president ideas" that you would piss on and laugh at any country that asked for our help ever. That includes terrible humanitiaran problems, ethnic extermination, etc. Nope sorry bosnia, sudan, sierra leon, haitai etc. Can't help the muslims will get mad at us boo hoo.

Also i would be curious to find out why in your opinion the morrally superior muslim states of the middle east have never welcomed with open arms the palestinian refugees? Especially extravegantly wealthy ones like the united arab emerites, quatar, saudi arabia. I am so sick of hearing how the palestinans are getting screwed over all the while they live in tents in dust villages in squalor while everyone in arab emerites gets $70,000 a year for their cut of the oil. No one has taken these "poor muslim brothers in yet". Is it cause they only care about the allmighty dollar?? They would have you believe that is a jewish problem

Second question. I consider winning a terror free environment. This will never happen. If you disagree with me on this one then find another planet to live on.

Very interesting that you would set the bar unreachable there by making even a 99.9999% reduction in violence intolerable. Are you this unrealistic with regards to limiting environmental pollution ? How about success at work …. If you do not succeed 100 % of the time do you quit, or fire your subordinates ? When was the last time the world had a terror free environment ? I hope you know in order to expect to repeat it again you should atleast know if such a time ever existed. I do disagree with you I am on planet earth and your head is in the sky, or in Uranus :tonka:

I would consider simply reducing or slowing the spread of radical islam a success. Violence met with complacency or pacifism never wins. All you do is get your ass handed to you.

Your total left wing view on American policy is very disturbing also. I have seen on TV afghanis say they hate America because we did not “support them” after helping them defeat USSR. Those guys are living in the stone ages 20 years later and could not develop their own shoulder mounted anit aircraft missles if we gave 30 years from today. We virtually gave them a time machine. Fucking ungrateful bastards. I don’t remember the news showing me any crying afghani saying no we want to throw rocks at the soviet tanks, and try to shoot them with rusty janky WWI bolt action rifles. If such footage exists id really like to see it.

To rationalize the violence toward the USA as the result of past foreign involvement, demands you argue the sematics of who started the first multinational war way back when. You could trace every war since then as retaliation of that first war 2,000-3,000 years ago. Thanks’s for giving America a get out of jail card and shooting your self in the foot!!! becuase if we “deserve terrorism” for our foreign policy, almost every country we have ever been involved in is older than the US and has a much longer history that itself involves many wars. This is like asking what came first the chicken or the egg. You chose to blame the US for some strange reason.

Very interesting that you would set the bar unreachable there by making even a 99.9999% reduction in violence intolerable. Are you this unrealistic with regards to limiting environmental pollution ? How about success at work …. If you do not succeed 100 % of the time do you quit, or fire your subordinates ? When was the last time the world had a terror free environment ? I hope you know in order to expect to repeat it again you should atleast know if such a time ever existed. I do disagree with you I am on planet earth and your head is in the sky, or in Uranus :tonka:

I would consider simply reducing or slowing the spread of radical islam a success. Violence met with complacency or pacifism never wins. All you do is get your ass handed to you.

Your total left wing view on American policy is very disturbing also. I have seen on TV afghanis say they hate America because we did not “support them” after helping them defeat USSR. Those guys are living in the stone ages 20 years later and could not develop their own shoulder mounted anit aircraft missles if we gave 30 years from today. We virtually gave them a time machine. Fucking ungrateful bastards. I don’t remember the news showing me any crying afghani saying no we want to throw rocks at the soviet tanks, and try to shoot them with rusty janky WWI bolt action rifles. If such footage exists id really like to see it.

To rationalize the violence toward the USA as the result of past foreign involvement, demands you argue the sematics of who started the first multinational war way back when. You could trace every war since then as retaliation of that first war 2,000-3,000 years ago. Thanks’s for giving America a get out of jail card and shooting your self in the foot!!! becuase if we “deserve terrorism” for our foreign policy, almost every country we have ever been involved in is older than the US and has a much longer history that itself involves many wars. This is like asking what came first the chicken or the egg. You chose to blame the US for some strange reason.

Some of your views I agree with. Most will be proven wrong whitin the next couple of years so us debating now will get us nowhere.

As far as 99.999% reduction in terrorism. That is also unrealsitic. If i started a business making donuts from dog crap. I would not expect my business to suceed 100% of the time. I would noever ask my employees to make such a thing so they would never be fired. So this would be a business I would stay away from. I dont even see a 50% drop in terrorism. As a matter of fact there are more pist off terrorists now than before 911.

You will most likely respond by saying we havent been hit since 911. Unfortunately this is a matter of time.

This is something you can never defeat. You can't just "kill 'em all" because the very act of killing them would motivate more to become "radical". The best we can hope for is to become less of a target for it. If we didn't need thier oil and didn't care about what happened to Isreal and ethnic monorities like the Kurds we could just leave and let them fight amongst themselves. I don't see that happening and even if it did as long as we are a free country and one of the dominant superpowers we will be seen as the "corrupter of the world" and will be targeted. So what do we do?

1. Work to find an alternative to oil. We're going to have to do this eventually, we may as well start now. The only viable option I see using current technology is nuclear power for electricity and hydrogen for transportation.

2. try to encourage the different religious and ethnic factions to settle thier differences peacefully and let them know that if they both insist on fighting that we'll let them fight and not support either side, but if some country launches an unprovoked attack on another we'll destroy thier military.

3. Continue to do everything we can to prevent thier attacks. Keep the "radicals" out of this country. Keep them on the run with stratgic and/or covert actions.

Winning?:

Winning a war means achieving our objectives. Our objective, at least currently, is to establish a "free, democratic Iraq". The problem is that by definition a "democracy" has to be choosen by the people. You can not impose a democracy. If the people wound rather follow a carismatic military leader or be ruled by a strong religious leader theres not much we can do about it.

I see it going like this... Over the next 2 years the Bush administeration will come under increased pressure from both sides to bring the war to an end. To do this and call it a victory they will push an Iraqi government and military to take on bigger and bigger responsibilities which they just aren't ready for and probably never will be. 2 Years from now this war will be the number 1 issue in the election, and the winner will be the candidate who convinces the American public that he can bring our troops home. We'll pretend to have estabished a stable government there and will then quickly withdraw before it colapses. The government we leave will stand no more than a year or 2. The, one of 3 things will happen. Either a military strong man, simular to Sadam, will emerge and take control promising to bring peace, and will at the cost of the lives of anyone that opposes him, or an extreem Islamic group, like the Taliban, will take over promising to bring them closer to Allah, or the country will disolve into a civil war, with various factions allinging themselves with other nations like Iran. This could go on for decades.

I just don't see and American style democracy surviving in a country with so many rival religious and ethnic factions.

The reason why some countries (mostly the USA) are more often the target of terrorist attacks is because:
1. We are involving ourselves more often in the affairs of other countries.
2. Our freedoms allow the terrorist more freedom to plan and carry out terrorist attacks
3. Because our culture has spread around the world more than any other nations so we are seen as the "corrupter" of the world.
4. It's a little like playing "king of the hill" when you were a kid, you always go after the guy at the top. We've been at the top for quite a while.

This is something you can never defeat. You can't just "kill 'em all" because the very act of killing them would motivate more to become "radical". The best we can hope for is to become less of a target for it. If we didn't need thier oil and didn't care about what happened to Isreal and ethnic monorities like the Kurds we could just leave and let them fight amongst themselves. I don't see that happening and even if it did as long as we are a free country and one of the dominant superpowers we will be seen as the "corrupter of the world" and will be targeted. So what do we do?

1. Work to find an alternative to oil. We're going to have to do this eventually, we may as well start now. The only viable option I see using current technology is nuclear power for electricity and hydrogen for transportation.

2. try to encourage the different religious and ethnic factions to settle thier differences peacefully and let them know that if they both insist on fighting that we'll let them fight and not support either side, but if some country launches an unprovoked attack on another we'll destroy thier military.

3. Continue to do everything we can to prevent thier attacks. Keep the "radicals" out of this country. Keep them on the run with stratgic and/or covert actions.

Winning?:

Winning a war means achieving our objectives. Our objective, at least currently, is to establish a "free, democratic Iraq". The problem is that by definition a "democracy" has to be choosen by the people. You can not impose a democracy. If the people wound rather follow a carismatic military leader or be ruled by a strong religious leader theres not much we can do about it.

I see it going like this... Over the next 2 years the Bush administeration will come under increased pressure from both sides to bring the war to an end. To do this and call it a victory they will push an Iraqi government and military to take on bigger and bigger responsibilities which they just aren't ready for and probably never will be. 2 Years from now this war will be the number 1 issue in the election, and the winner will be the candidate who convinces the American public that he can bring our troops home. We'll pretend to have estabished a stable government there and will then quickly withdraw before it colapses. The government we leave will stand no more than a year or 2. The, one of 3 things will happen. Either a military strong man, simular to Sadam, will emerge and take control promising to bring peace, and will at the cost of the lives of anyone that opposes him, or an extreem Islamic group, like the Taliban, will take over promising to bring them closer to Allah, or the country will disolve into a civil war, with various factions allinging themselves with other nations like Iran. This could go on for decades.

I just don't see and American style democracy surviving in a country with so many rival religious and ethnic factions.

The reason why some countries (mostly the USA) are more often the target of terrorist attacks is because:
1. We are involving ourselves more often in the affairs of other countries.
2. Our freedoms allow the terrorist more freedom to plan and carry out terrorist attacks
3. Because our culture has spread around the world more than any other nations so we are seen as the "corrupter" of the world.
4. It's a little like playing "king of the hill" when you were a kid, you always go after the guy at the top. We've been at the top for quite a while.

ha screw you CMUJEEPER i agree with much of what brewman said, its not all that different then what i said as to why we are targets/THE TOP TARGET. All three scenarios brewmann brought up could happen, and his political foresight to what the potentential candidates will say is completely reasonable. I happen to like brewmans posts and think he is a smart guy.

I do agree about reducing dependance on oil, but thats not realistic in the short term. I dont see any major major difference occuring in the next 20 years. Maybe USA consumption per capita would go down a tiny bit, but china alone will make world wide consumption spike so i dont know what effect it would have. It wont reduce conflict in the region if our oil interests are reduced. Henry ford for all his anti semetic quackery rightfully believe to a degree that trade could bring peace (much like the old european monachs entra-marrying helped reduce warfare, when our economies are so related .... hopefully we dont just jump and fight over silly shit.) Because of the relationships in the global economy, reducing our oil comsumption will not help if our interests in china are met with resistance in oil rich countries. Our allies that are worth two shits fight for their interests here, and our tens/hundreds of billions of investement going into china every year isnt going to be let just fade away cause of some oil embargo or sqauble.

The muslims and jews will fight for control of jeruslaem to the end of time. Our relationship has nothing to do with that. Their could be no one left on earth but 10 jews and 10 muslims and they would all fight to the death.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewmenn

1. Work to find an alternative to oil. We're going to have to do this eventually, we may as well start now. The only viable option I see using current technology is nuclear power for electricity and hydrogen for transportation..

I dont see nuclear taking off, even thought its safe, we have to much ignorance, we cant even transport the waste with out the news people getting everyone worked up about it. Its one of those not in my back yard things. People think great "ill use nueclear power" but most folks want the generation to be 2,000 miles away. And not a drop of waste to EVER pass through their state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewmenn

2. try to encourage the different religious and ethnic factions to settle thier differences peacefully and let them know that if they both insist on fighting that we'll let them fight and not support either side, but if some country launches an unprovoked attack on another we'll destroy thier military.

Sounds good an all, but with out trade embargos or our military might and flexing how do we "encourage" them. First of all they get off on telling us no, and second with out starving 'em or lobbing a shit ton of missiles they have really no reason to listen. The retailiation for unprovoked attach a la Iraq attacking Kuwait ? We are still dealing with the repercussions, and i dont see how you can agree with that part CMUjeeper or you mikeL? Or unless you guys meant you agree with FUTURE unprovoked attacks and we will use bill clinton english and debate what unprovoked is for years before we react(like what the meaning of the word is "is" ??? ).

duuuuuur ! i know we cant kill all the radicals, thats as realistic as mikeL not being happy untill there is zero terrorism. My point was you cant, and i know it. :tonka: Not that we should try to literally kill every radical but steming the growth is a win in my book.

MikeL you didnt answer when then last time there was zero terrorism ????

I do agree about reducing dependance on oil, but thats not realistic in the short term. I dont see any major major difference occuring in the next 20 years. Maybe USA consumption per capita would go down a tiny bit, but china alone will make world wide consumption spike so i dont know what effect it would have. It wont reduce conflict in the region if our oil interests are reduced. Henry ford for all his anti semetic quackery rightfully believe to a degree that trade could bring peace (much like the old european monachs entra-marrying helped reduce warfare, when our economies are so related .... hopefully we dont just jump and fight over silly shit.) Because of the relationships in the global economy, reducing our oil comsumption will not help if our interests in china are met with resistance in oil rich countries. Our allies that are worth two shits fight for their interests here, and our tens/hundreds of billions of investement going into china every year isnt going to be let just fade away cause of some oil embargo or sqauble.

I'm definatly thinking long term here. I think that part of our problem is we keep trying to make short term fixes rather than trying to fix the problem. Even if we put our full effort into hydrogen powered car right now it'd probably be 5 years at least before you see even limited production, another 5 before you see sales to the general public, and yet another 5 years before they're out there in significant enough numbers to reduce oil consumption. But if we don't start it'll never happen. Once they're avalible though they'll be avalible world wide so demand for oil will drop everywhere. It may not reduce conflict in the region but it will reduce the effect those conflicts have on our lives and allow us to deal with them without worring about our oil supply.

I'm not a big fan of all the investment we're putting into China, but thats a whole other topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamiesann

The muslims and jews will fight for control of jeruslaem to the end of time. Our relationship has nothing to do with that. Their could be no one left on earth but 10 jews and 10 muslims and they would all fight to the death.

I agree. And if they want to keep fighting I have no problem with letting them fight. Why should we get involved?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamiesann

I dont see nuclear taking off, even thought its safe, we have to much ignorance, we cant even transport the waste with out the news people getting everyone worked up about it. Its one of those not in my back yard things. People think great "ill use nueclear power" but most folks want the generation to be 2,000 miles away. And not a drop of waste to EVER pass through their state.

Probably not anytime real soon, but again, I'm thinking long term. Most of the power plants built lately are natural gas fires which i think is stupid. Natural Gas makes such a good home heating and cooking fuel I hate to see us use it up making electricity. Again, short term thinking. I'm guessing that they're probably the cheapest type of power plant to build, so I see it as power companies trying ot make a quick buck with minimal investment. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is moving ahead with nuclear power. Eventually we'll realize that if some 3rd world country can safely run them then so can we.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamiesann

Sounds good an all, but with out trade embargos or our military might and flexing how do we "encourage" them. First of all they get off on telling us no, and second with out starving 'em or lobbing a shit ton of missiles they have really no reason to listen. The retailiation for unprovoked attach a la Iraq attacking Kuwait ? We are still dealing with the repercussions, and i dont see how you can agree with that part CMUjeeper or you mikeL? Or unless you guys meant you agree with FUTURE unprovoked attacks and we will use bill clinton english and debate what unprovoked is for years before we react(like what the meaning of the word is "is" ??? ).

I never said that we shouldn't use trade embargos or military might as encouragements. Treat them like little kids, give them a cookie when they behave and make them sit by themselves in the corner whan they don't. If they really piss us off we whomp thier ass. But I'm not buying the "worlds policemen" role that some people think we should play. I just don't think we should get involved between groups that have been fighting since the begining of time.

And yes, trying to decide what was an "unprovoked" attack is never easy and will have to be decided on a case by case basis.

BTW what "repercussions" are we dealing with from Iraq attacking Kuwait? That war ended in 1992. This current war had little to do with that one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamiesann

duuuuuur ! i know we cant kill all the radicals, thats as realistic as mikeL not being happy untill there is zero terrorism. My point was you cant, and i know it. :tonka: Not that we should try to literally kill every radical but steming the growth is a win in my book.

I agree that "steming the growth" would be a win. But as long as we keep messing with the politics of that part of the world they'll keep coming at us.

I dont see nuclear taking off, even thought its safe, we have to much ignorance, we cant even transport the waste with out the news people getting everyone worked up about it. Its one of those not in my back yard things. People think great "ill use nueclear power" but most folks want the generation to be 2,000 miles away. And not a drop of waste to EVER pass through their state.

I don't know why people are so paranoid about nuke plants. I live about 20 minutes from the Cook Nuke plant and I only glow about twice a year. And I'm impotent.

MikeL you didnt answer when then last time there was zero terrorism ????

There has been terrorism longer than anyone can remember. What is the point of your question?

It has to do with realism. I imagine based on some of your other beliefs you are likely pro affirmative action, pro well fare? Do you think well fare should be aboslished IF ONE PERSON abuses the system ? How about affirmative action if one more qualified person is passed over for a black, a female etc ?

It has to do with realism. I imagine based on some of your other beliefs you are likely pro affirmative action, pro well fare? Do you think well fare should be aboslished IF ONE PERSON abuses the system ? How about affirmative action if one more qualified person is passed over for a black, a female etc ?

My point is how transparent your unrealistic your tolerance level is.

Your ignorance shines. I am against affirmitive action and welfare. You are just clueless. You have no idea of my beliefs and as i just typed in another post. You group all togehter. And what the hell does that have to do with Terrorism?